|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 0:53:58 GMT
Even if it was, unless convection changes it isn't going to cancel out any of that 3.7wm-2 imbalance. As I said in my last post the 3.7wm-2 figure for doubling co2 is based on everything else in the atmosphere remaining the same. That goes for convection too. If?  ?? LOL! Convection starts changing every morning when the sun comes up and changes again when the sun goes down, not to talk about shifting and changing all day long. How ridiculous!!! If convection changes. . . .ROTFLMAO!!! We are talking about climate and therefore we are talking about climatological means not daily fluctuations or weather. The models can't quantify anything unless somebody parameterizes them[/QUOTE] Quantification doesn't depend on whether you subjectively accept or reject the numbers. It simply means they have derived numbers for it. Ie it has been quantified. You don't think there are cloud models? |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 18, 2009 0:54:46 GMT
So the 4 watt forcing comes from models and is verified by models.
Why would any one believe a model that does not have the intermediate outputs needed nor the desire by its author to have a robust verification program?
Right now the climate science sector has no credibility. And unless they realize they need to follow a path of independent verification of there models and embrace a path to do so, they will be looking for a new line of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 1:02:38 GMT
If you cannot provide a figure I will understand - but then you may not want to as it may be an order of magnitude or two more than the 3.7WM -2 claimed for CO 2. Even if it was, unless convection changes it isn't going to cancel out any of that 3.7wm-2 imbalance. As I said in my last post the 3.7wm-2 figure for doubling co2 is based on everything else in the atmosphere remaining the same. That goes for convection too. The planet will respond to counter the 3.7wm-2 imbalance. One way it can do that is to warm up. This is what the physics calculations show. If you want to know specific results of these calculations such as how much energy is transported by convection to specific heights you'll have to track it down yourself, I don't know and assume you'd need to analyze that kind of model output to find out. Not something I have done and not something I plan on learning how to do. As for convection in general as part of a solution to the imbalance - I have no idea how that would work. Do you need convection to increase or decrease? Which way round cools the planet? Increasing convection cools the surface and warms the atmosphere. But does that result in more outgoing energy? I don't know. In any case convection needs to change in order to solve the imbalance. Ie the hypothesis would be that doubling co2 changes convection. That alone signifies that co2 isn't some irrelevant trace gas if we can alter convection by doubling it. Of course there's quantification. The models. SoCold If I were you I would stop displaying abject ignorance of the hydrologic cycle convection and its effects. It shows why you always revert to a nice simple radiative equation. I suggest that you learn something about convection and weather systems and the incredible amount of energy involved in them and their innate reactive behavior to imbalances in heat and humidity. I don't supposed you have understood why you get huge towering thunderstorms over the sea in the equatorial regions and not over the arctic? Or why the tropopause is around 2 miles higher at the equator than it is at mid latitudes? Or how a sea breeze starts and reverses direction during the day? Or why the storms build inland from the beach during the day and over the sea at night? Why would the planet warm up if the hydrologic cycle just increases and transports MORE heat to the tropopause as a result of any slight CO 2 warming in the lower troposphere? Remember this increase has now been shown to be the case by observation using ERBE. Perhaps you should understand something about climate and heat transport through the tropopause before you try to reduce it to solely radiation expressed as a simple hypothetical mathematical equation of questionable utility. Your response certainly gives an indication of why you find it easy believe the AGW hypothesis. My challenge still stands to glc and Steve - quantify the heat transport to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle and convection, and the heat reflected away by albedo increase in the absence of CO 2. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 1:09:59 GMT
If? ?? LOL! Convection starts changing every morning when the sun comes up and changes again when the sun goes down, not to talk about shifting and changing all day long. How ridiculous!!! If convection changes. . . .ROTFLMAO!!! Quantification doesn't depend on whether you subjectively accept or reject the numbers. It simply means they have derived numbers for it. Ie it has been quantified. Well the radiation you are talking about is only photon by photon - so it is even smaller duration than convective weather. It is the sum of all the hydrologic cycle effects and convection over a long period that needs to be quantified; in the same way as you sum all the photons emitted and scattered by CO 2 molecules. to get to your Stephan Boltzmann and Beers Lambert equations. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 1:15:48 GMT
So the 4 watt forcing comes from models and is verified by models. Why would any one believe a model that does not have the intermediate outputs needed nor the desire by its author to have a robust verification program? Why would anyone want to dismiss a model out of hand? I can think of a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 1:28:37 GMT
Playing the "lets do it more complicated" card is a bad move. The GCMs do it in more detail, they actually run the numbers, therefore I tend to believe their output rather than your non-validated descriptions if we must go down that route.
I have no desire to learn atmospheric physics. I thought about doing it at one point but then realized that unless I went the whole hog there is just no point. And the whole hog is years of study, which would not serve me any obvious purpose.
The GCMs show the planet warming up and the hydrological cycle increasing, so evidentially speeding up the hydrological cycle doesn't necessitate low warming from a doubling of co2.
Furthermore are you suggesting that doubling co2 speeds up the global hydrological cycle? If so then you seem to be saying doubling co2 does have a significant effect on climate afterall.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 1:31:48 GMT
"We are talking about climate and therefore we are talking about climatological means not daily fluctuations or weather."Well the radiation you are talking about is only photon by photon - so it is even smaller duration than convective weather. The 3.7wm-2 inbalance is the average annual reduction in outgoing energy if co2 is doubled and nothing else changes. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2009 5:33:39 GMT
If? ?? LOL! Convection starts changing every morning when the sun comes up and changes again when the sun goes down, not to talk about shifting and changing all day long. How ridiculous!!! If convection changes. . . .ROTFLMAO!!! We are talking about climate and therefore we are talking about climatological means not daily fluctuations or weather. [/quote] Thats truly hilarious Socold. So you think that convection will have a harder time adjusting over years than it does in the 5 minutes after dawn. LOL! The models can't quantify anything unless somebody parameterizes them Quantification doesn't depend on whether you subjectively accept or reject the numbers. It simply means they have derived numbers for it. Ie it has been quantified. [/quote] You are missing the point. A model is a tool. Like a rifle it hits the target you aim it at. Or if thats too thick for you, like a saw it saws the board in the direction you aim the saw. Is that beginning to describe it for you or do you need more examples? You don't think there are cloud models? Yeah sure. Huffy puffy was a cloud, and nice cloud it was. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 18, 2009 11:02:02 GMT
I give up trying to talk science on this thread. What I was taught many years ago, was that if you cannot measure it, it is not physics. Models only have use if their output can, in the end, be measured and verified. Since the 3.7 wm-2 and 1 C increase for a doubling of CO2 can NEVER be measured, this, so far as I am concerned is not, and never will be, physics. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 11:13:35 GMT
You have the wrong end of the stick. Convection will have a climatological mean. If a 3.7wm-2 energy imbalance occurs then that mean must shift significantly to have any chance of solving that imbalance. So you must be proposing that doubling co2 alters the climatological mean of convection?
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 11:17:09 GMT
I give up trying to talk science on this thread. What I was taught many years ago, was that if you cannot measure it, it is not physics. Models only have use if their output can, in the end, be measured and verified. Since the 3.7 wm-2 and 1 C increase for a doubling of CO2 can NEVER be measured, this, so far as I am concerned is not, and never will be, physics. Period. Science doesn't demand every result is observed or measured. If that was true we could write off the existence of the dinosaurs because noone has ever gone back in time to observe and measure a living dinosaur. Scientific results can be based off inference from measurements. For example in the case of dinosaurs, fossils are observed and measured and the existence of dinosaurs is therefore strongly inferred. We don't need to directly observe or measure that. In the case of radiative forcing, radiative transfer in the atmosphere and it's absorption by various gases is observed and measured and from that 3.7wm-2 forcing from doubling co2 is strongly inferred. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 18, 2009 11:45:38 GMT
The 3.7W-m2 is really a quit useless figure. It shows doubling co2 has a significant effect on climate. A 3.7wm-2 imbalance requires a substantial climate change to solve. Actually its a fairly trivial imbalance compared to the energy dealt with by water vapor. Here's where you're dropping a concept mentally socold. You're seeing what we've been telling you for ages and going "Ah ha! See it affects the climate." Yeah, this is EXACTLY what we've been saying the whole time. Unfortunately for you, what it does is negate a significant (probably substantial) portion of your supposed 3.7 watts. We've pointed this out from the start. As always it is YOUR inability to hold these concepts simultaneously that is hindering you. Unfortunately it's near impossible for you to detect your own inability to juggle sufficient amounts of information...as this realization would its self knock out more information. This lack of mental work space is also why you can't tell the difference between parametrization in models and models actually being a seamless steam of calculations that ties the entire climate model together as one. You can't detect the difference because you have to do the exact same thing to even perceive the model. If you try to perceive the whole, seamless system you don't have enough space to detect interaction beyond the individual subsystems and you flush your workspace to hold the next fairly coherent subsystem. Your very perception is just a little more parametrized. Its not a big difference, but its sufficient to make see the "big picture" as smaller than it truly is. Most people also have similar issues with "alternative" energy. They can't view the whole picture, so they trade penny wise solutions for pound foolish ones, thinking they've done something ecologically sound. Sort of like, if you're going to be burning oil for electrical production anyway and biofuel production is only 50% efficient to even make the fuel in the first place, you're better off just BURNING the biomass in a power plant (so 100% of it starts as fuel) and burning the oil products in vehicles. Now you should probably go back up and reread the message above the example because you've likely lost a concept again. Do yourself a favor and read the main part about mental workspace WITHOUT pondering any actual climate information. For others that have had at least a vague idea of this issue. This is where the politicization of science causes problems. Since the general population cannot tell the difference themselves, once they exert their preference on the scientific establishment they run the risk of latching on to an oversimplified concept and driving out all those that are capable of understanding the reality. Take Michael Mann for example. His main papers are an outright disgrace but he's held in high esteem just the same. Worse, he clings to a belief that is demonstrably wrong (that the warming is unprecedented)...and the demonstration was directly against his papers! The alarmists have basically censored and censured the world into the APPEARANCE of their worldview being an absolute fact...when they really just have some potential in CO2 absorption that has never been shown to work in the dynamic climate and warming showing the wrong causal relationship to CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 11:59:27 GMT
Socold: "The GCMs show the planet warming up and the hydrological cycle increasing, so evidentially speeding up the hydrological cycle doesn't necessitate low warming from a doubling of co2.
Furthermore are you suggesting that doubling co2 speeds up the global hydrological cycle? If so then you seem to be saying doubling co2 does have a significant effect on climate afterall."SoCold - I was asking you to quantify the size of the energy transfer to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle - you repeatedly say the GCMs have this information - great - tell us what it is from your expertise in GCMs. The reason that I am asking is that you may find that your 3.7 watts per square meter (not stated where that is measured) is dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by a REACTIVE hydrologic cycle that can merely increase its energy transfer to the tropopause by a vanishingly small percentage to transport any 'extra' heat claimed to be caused by CO 2 scattering of outbound radiation. As you said " speeding up the hydrologic cycle" - this would increase heat transport to the tropopause and nullify any radiative absorption. This has been shown by actual observations - not assumption riddled parameterized models. (From higher in this thread) icefisher:
I think even an IPCC Working Group agrees with you: Cloud Modeling is a major shortcoming in the models. At risk of referring you to something already familiar, perhaps one of these may be useful:
Lindzen, , Ph.D. , Richard, and Yong-Sang Choi. “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data.” Geophysical Research Letters Pending (July 14, 2009). www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf.
Lindzen, , Ph.D. , Richard, Anthony Watts, and Yong-Sang Choi. “New paper from Lindzen demonstrates low climate sensitivity with observational data .” Watts Up With That? wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/.
Lindzen, Richard S., Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou. “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82, no. 3 (March 1, 2001): 417-432 . dx.doi.org/10.1175%2F1520-0477%282001%29082%3C0417%3ADTEHAA%3E2.3.CO%3B2.
Lindzen, Richard, PhD. “Lindzen on negative climate feedback (with updates).” Blog. Watts Up With That?, March 30, 2009. wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
“Svalgaard Solar Theory « Climate Audit.” www.climateaudit.org/?p=2470
“Svalgaard #3 « Climate Audit.” www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679
“Svalgaard #4 « Climate Audit.” www.climateaudit.org/?p=2868
The climate system is NOT a linear system or a deterministic system as your mathematics and simple approaches try to make it. Climate and weather is a chaotic system. It would appear that the current state is close to an attractor and various cycles in the climate will react to perturbations in a way that returns the climate back to that attractor. Even if the 'radiative forcing' was true, trying to use simplistic ' add this and it gets hotter' maths to forecast the behavior of a large chaotic system will never work. So once more - as you, glc and Steve know all these models so well: Provide quantification of the hydrologic cycle heat transport to the tropopause in terms of watts per square meter at the tropopause. (As it is a variable system a distribution of values would be expected). This will allow comparison with the claimed 3.7 Watts per square meter for pure radiation in a slab atmosphere. If you don't know - or cannot find a reference detailing these values from someone who does - then say so. We are all learning here. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 12:11:39 GMT
It shows doubling co2 has a significant effect on climate. A 3.7wm-2 imbalance requires a substantial climate change to solve. Actually its a fairly trivial imbalance compared to the energy dealt with by water vapor. It's a very significant imbalance. For the sun to cause a 3.7wm-2 imbalance would take a solar output increase of almost 2%. Considering that from solar min to max solar output increases just 0.1%, that's a big increase. Or in terms of cloud changes a 3.7wm-2 imbalance would require global cloud albedo to decrease 5%. These are big changes in mean conditions. In fact the forcing from doubling co2 is probably the biggest plausible forcing in coming centuries known to man (noone thinks it plausible that solar output will change by 2% for example, while a doubling of co2 is more likely than not to happen ) We haven't determined that it does and all the models do not find it does either. All I am doing is saying that if that is indeed the case then you are proposing a significant change to climate caused by doubling co2. So therefore "so much" for the idea that doubling co2 is irrelevant and equivalent to someone spitting (Reid Bryson reference). If doubling co2 caused no warming because cloud albedo increases 5% in response, that means doubling co2 causes a 5% increase in global cloud albedo. Meaning it's hardly an insignificant trace gas after all. And the idea that we can't alter climate with our emissions because we are small and climate is big is wrong if our emissions can increase cloud albedo by 5% Once skeptics realize the idea that doubling co2 has an insignificant effect is a fallacy and that doubling co2 has a substantial effect on climate, then that's one less barrier to accepting it's influence on temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 12:21:23 GMT
Socold: "The GCMs show the planet warming up and the hydrological cycle increasing, so evidentially speeding up the hydrological cycle doesn't necessitate low warming from a doubling of co2.
Furthermore are you suggesting that doubling co2 speeds up the global hydrological cycle? If so then you seem to be saying doubling co2 does have a significant effect on climate afterall."SoCold - I was asking you to quantify the size of the energy transfer to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle - you repeatedly say the GCMs have this information - great - tell us what it is from your expertise in GCMs. What expertize in GCMs? I can't quantify those numbers because I have never worked with a GCM or GCM results nor do I understand the workings of the hydrological cycle. I won't find this because I am not running any calculation. The models do and they don't find this. Whether any heat is transported by the hydrological cycle to the tropopause is a quesiton in itself. Also radiation from Earth into space crosses the tropopause but isn't from the tropopause. |
|
